Poor yet Conservative: Is it Rational?

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

if you don't show loyalty towards your masters, why would they protect you?

[New haven america]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[West Leas Oros]

True. I get why someone would vote conservative in the UK despite being poor because while their policies may hurt the poor in some respects, they still use actual economics and facts to shape their policies and may improve things faster than a Labour government.

In the US however, anyone who is poor and votes republican does so for some combination of these 4 reasons:

1. They hate women and/or abortion.
2. They hate minorities and/or immigrants.
3. They hate gun control or regulation.
4. They hate themselves.

Fucking lol

Couldn’t agree more.

[Tobleste]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

He's got a point. If one party hasn't solved all his problems, he should obviously vote for the opposite. /s

[Tobleste]

Fucking lol

Couldn’t agree more.

Well with those responses, you've proved me wrong.

[Krasny-Volny]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Maybe reactance has something to do with the phenomenon being discussed in the OP.

People tend to reject a policy or action that is to their advantage when they feel pushed into making the "correct" decision.

So the more you talk about how the left cares about the poor, and therefore how rational it is all poor people should be leftists, the less likely they are to actually be so.

[Kramanica]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Funny, I don't seem to be any poorer.

[Kramanica]

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Maybe reactance has something to do with the phenomenon being discussed in the OP.

People tend to reject a policy or action that is to their advantage when they feel pushed into making the "correct" decision.

So the more you talk about how the left cares about the poor, and therefore how rational it is all poor people should be leftists, the less likely they are to actually be so.

Or maybe they just aren't.

[Krasny-Volny]

Maybe reactance has something to do with the phenomenon being discussed in the OP.

People tend to reject a policy or action that is to their advantage when they feel pushed into making the "correct" decision.

So the more you talk about how the left cares about the poor, and therefore how rational it is all poor people should be leftists, the less likely they are to actually be so.

Or maybe they just aren't.

That too.

People vote the way they do (or don't) for millions of individual reasons.

People who earn under a certain level of income are not a monolithic voting bloc.

[Telconi]

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Maybe reactance has something to do with the phenomenon being discussed in the OP.

People tend to reject a policy or action that is to their advantage when they feel pushed into making the "correct" decision.

So the more you talk about how the left cares about the poor, and therefore how rational it is all poor people should be leftists, the less likely they are to actually be so.

Trust me, while I find arrogance to be annoying, my choose to not support your party wasn't so knee-jerk.

[The Portland Territory]

We were in deep shit in 2008 yet my parents were still (economically as well as socially) extremely Conservative. I was a Stalinist at the time but we dont talk about that

[The Portland Territory]

Yes, it's perfectly rational.

As someone who is poor the modern left has done nothing for me or my family, so I don't see why I should have any sense of loyalty toward them.

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As far as I see it it's regulations that are killing and killed our nation's economies, from first-hand experience

[Ktathria]

The question for me would be: Is being conservative all about money and economics?

I live in what is generally considered a 'poor' constituency in the UK – half of the constituency is one of the most deprived towns of the country, according to the official measurements. But it consistently elects Conservative MPs, and although it was a Con/Lab marginal at two previous elections, this constituency has never had anything other than a Conservative MP. At the 2017 election the Conservative incumbent won more than 60% of the vote (for those who may not be as familiar with British politics, many winning candidates don't even secure a majority of the popular vote, let alone getting up towards two thirds of it).

Is it irrational for people living in a deprived area to vote Conservative? If it is, then most of the people in my local area must be irrational. Perhaps they are!

That said, this area also happens to have a lot of people with extremely anti-EU views. It returned one of the highest vote shares for 'Leave' in the entire country in the Brexit referendum. There is also a lot of anti-immigration feeling here. These things lead me to suspect that a great many people vote Conservative for social, not economic, reasons. Indeed, if supporting a political party was about economics and earnings alone, then Labour should be able to walk every election in my particular corner of the UK without even trying.

I will finish off by saying that I am among those considered to be low earners in this area, and since 2010 I have found myself to be consistently better off as time has gone by. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't be even better off under a Labour government, but at the same time, as someone who doesn't earn enough to even pay income tax, I have never felt particularly victimised by the Conservatives. I know they fail a lot of people, but I think the demographics as to precisely who those people are depend on more than just earnings. That's only my experience, and I'm sure others will say differently.

[West Leas Oros]

The question for me would be: Is being conservative all about money and economics?

I live in what is generally considered a 'poor' constituency in the UK – half of the constituency is one of the most deprived towns of the country, according to the official measurements. But it consistently elects Conservative MPs, and although it was a Con/Lab marginal at two previous elections, this constituency has never had anything other than a Conservative MP. At the 2017 election the Conservative incumbent won more than 60% of the vote (for those who may not be as familiar with British politics, many winning candidates don't even secure a majority of the popular vote, let alone getting up towards two thirds of it).

Is it irrational for people living in a deprived area to vote Conservative? If it is, then most of the people in my local area must be irrational. Perhaps they are!

That said, this area also happens to have a lot of people with extremely anti-EU views. It returned one of the highest vote shares for 'Leave' in the entire country in the Brexit referendum. There is also a lot of anti-immigration feeling here. These things lead me to suspect that a great many people vote Conservative for social, not economic, reasons. Indeed, if supporting a political party was about economics and earnings alone, then Labour should be able to walk every election in my particular corner of the UK without even trying.

I will finish off by saying that I am among those considered to be low earners in this area, and since 2010 I have found myself to be consistently better off as time has gone by. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't be even better off under a Labour government, but at the same time, as someone who doesn't earn enough to even pay income tax, I have never felt particularly victimised by the Conservatives. I know they fail a lot of people, but I think the demographics as to precisely who those people are depend on more than just earnings. That's only my experience, and I'm sure others will say differently.

I see what you mean with the first point. Where I’m from, most conservative voters focus more on non-economic issues, and many see leftists as little more than entitled progressives who get offended by literally everything. It’s actually kind of annoying to be honest, I wish they wouldn’t pigeonhole socialists or social democrats in with the social liberals so much, considering social liberals tend to be more neoliberal economically, supporting a sort of regulated capitalism, not quite laissez faire, but not quite social democratic either.

[Diopolis]

The question for me would be: Is being conservative all about money and economics?

I live in what is generally considered a 'poor' constituency in the UK – half of the constituency is one of the most deprived towns of the country, according to the official measurements. But it consistently elects Conservative MPs, and although it was a Con/Lab marginal at two previous elections, this constituency has never had anything other than a Conservative MP. At the 2017 election the Conservative incumbent won more than 60% of the vote (for those who may not be as familiar with British politics, many winning candidates don't even secure a majority of the popular vote, let alone getting up towards two thirds of it).

Is it irrational for people living in a deprived area to vote Conservative? If it is, then most of the people in my local area must be irrational. Perhaps they are!

That said, this area also happens to have a lot of people with extremely anti-EU views. It returned one of the highest vote shares for 'Leave' in the entire country in the Brexit referendum. There is also a lot of anti-immigration feeling here. These things lead me to suspect that a great many people vote Conservative for social, not economic, reasons. Indeed, if supporting a political party was about economics and earnings alone, then Labour should be able to walk every election in my particular corner of the UK without even trying.

I will finish off by saying that I am among those considered to be low earners in this area, and since 2010 I have found myself to be consistently better off as time has gone by. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't be even better off under a Labour government, but at the same time, as someone who doesn't earn enough to even pay income tax, I have never felt particularly victimised by the Conservatives. I know they fail a lot of people, but I think the demographics as to precisely who those people are depend on more than just earnings. That's only my experience, and I'm sure others will say differently.

I see what you mean with the first point. Where I’m from, most conservative voters focus more on non-economic issues, and many see leftists as little more than entitled progressives who get offended by literally everything. It’s actually kind of annoying to be honest, I wish they wouldn’t pigeonhole socialists or social democrats in with the social liberals so much, considering social liberals tend to be more neoliberal economically, supporting a sort of regulated capitalism, not quite laissez faire, but not quite social democratic either.

From my vantage point on the far(well, for america anyway) right, it's pretty apparent that there's a strong divide between the strong social conservatives(me!) the strong economic conservatives(my dad! We don't talk economics) and the uberpopulist working class(my coworkers!). It'd be interesting to see what leftists see as divisions in their movement.

[Telconi]

The question for me would be: Is being conservative all about money and economics?

I live in what is generally considered a 'poor' constituency in the UK – half of the constituency is one of the most deprived towns of the country, according to the official measurements. But it consistently elects Conservative MPs, and although it was a Con/Lab marginal at two previous elections, this constituency has never had anything other than a Conservative MP. At the 2017 election the Conservative incumbent won more than 60% of the vote (for those who may not be as familiar with British politics, many winning candidates don't even secure a majority of the popular vote, let alone getting up towards two thirds of it).

Is it irrational for people living in a deprived area to vote Conservative? If it is, then most of the people in my local area must be irrational. Perhaps they are!

That said, this area also happens to have a lot of people with extremely anti-EU views. It returned one of the highest vote shares for 'Leave' in the entire country in the Brexit referendum. There is also a lot of anti-immigration feeling here. These things lead me to suspect that a great many people vote Conservative for social, not economic, reasons. Indeed, if supporting a political party was about economics and earnings alone, then Labour should be able to walk every election in my particular corner of the UK without even trying.

I will finish off by saying that I am among those considered to be low earners in this area, and since 2010 I have found myself to be consistently better off as time has gone by. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't be even better off under a Labour government, but at the same time, as someone who doesn't earn enough to even pay income tax, I have never felt particularly victimised by the Conservatives. I know they fail a lot of people, but I think the demographics as to precisely who those people are depend on more than just earnings. That's only my experience, and I'm sure others will say differently.

I see what you mean with the first point. Where I’m from, most conservative voters focus more on non-economic issues, and many see leftists as little more than entitled progressives who get offended by literally everything. It’s actually kind of annoying to be honest, I wish they wouldn’t pigeonhole socialists or social democrats in with the social liberals so much, considering social liberals tend to be more neoliberal economically, supporting a sort of regulated capitalism, not quite laissez faire, but not quite social democratic either.

Getting pigeonholed into perceived cookie cutter categories is quite bothersome.

[West Leas Oros]

I see what you mean with the first point. Where I’m from, most conservative voters focus more on non-economic issues, and many see leftists as little more than entitled progressives who get offended by literally everything. It’s actually kind of annoying to be honest, I wish they wouldn’t pigeonhole socialists or social democrats in with the social liberals so much, considering social liberals tend to be more neoliberal economically, supporting a sort of regulated capitalism, not quite laissez faire, but not quite social democratic either.

From my vantage point on the far(well, for america anyway) right, it's pretty apparent that there's a strong divide between the strong social conservatives(me!) the strong economic conservatives(my dad! We don't talk economics) and the uberpopulist working class(my coworkers!). It'd be interesting to see what leftists see as divisions in their movement.

Same here. As a far-leftist (by American standards) I notice similar divisions between “progressive social leftists” (most lefties) and your “old guard socialists” (me and my fellow “reds”!) I talk economic perspectives with most, but I hold an animosity towards the overall trends of idpol and “u white male!1!1!!!” types of politics. The way I saw it, is that this “oppression” is demeaning and in the end, hinders the proletarian movement as a whole.

[New haven america]

And so you choose to go to the side that's actively trying to make the poor poorer and kill the middle class?

Good job cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As far as I see it it's regulations that are killing and killed our nation's economies, from first-hand experience

>Claims regulations are killing economy
>Doesn't list any of the regulations


If regulations were killing the economy you wouldn't have any problem actually listing the one's responsible. Also, fun fact, one of the main tenants of Tickle Down Economics is deregulation, and that system has not only survived but grown in the 21st century in direct decline of our social classes, so it's not hard to find what may be the cause of this socioeconomic problem. (Or maybe it is, IDK, I don't have trouble with it but it seems like others do. I mean, it's not like we have recorded history of the free market acting on its own and having everything go to shit-Oh wait...)

[Dinake]

From my vantage point on the far(well, for america anyway) right, it's pretty apparent that there's a strong divide between the strong social conservatives(me!) the strong economic conservatives(my dad! We don't talk economics) and the uberpopulist working class(my coworkers!). It'd be interesting to see what leftists see as divisions in their movement.

Same here. As a far-leftist (by American standards) I notice similar divisions between “progressive social leftists” (most lefties) and your “old guard socialists” (me and my fellow “reds”!) I talk economic perspectives with most, but I hold an animosity towards the overall trends of idpol and “u white male!1!1!!!” types of politics. The way I saw it, is that this “oppression” is demeaning and in the end, hinders the proletarian movement as a whole.

Feel free to TG me if you want to discuss further(I'm a puppet of Dio; main account please).

[Jamilkhuze]

From my vantage point on the far(well, for america anyway) right, it's pretty apparent that there's a strong divide between the strong social conservatives(me!) the strong economic conservatives(my dad! We don't talk economics) and the uberpopulist working class(my coworkers!). It'd be interesting to see what leftists see as divisions in their movement.

Same here. As a far-leftist (by American standards) I notice similar divisions between “progressive social leftists” (most lefties) and your “old guard socialists” (me and my fellow “reds”!) I talk economic perspectives with most, but I hold an animosity towards the overall trends of idpol and “u white male!1!1!!!” types of politics. The way I saw it, is that this “oppression” is demeaning and in the end, hinders the proletarian movement as a whole.

I feel like the divisions within the American center-left are more nuanced than that. Hardcore fringe self-proclaimed "socialists", social democrats, neoliberals, "idpol" types (of which there are at least two or three subtypes in terms of what groups of people they cater to), and greens come to mind.

[Kvatchdom]

From my vantage point on the far(well, for america anyway) right, it's pretty apparent that there's a strong divide between the strong social conservatives(me!) the strong economic conservatives(my dad! We don't talk economics) and the uberpopulist working class(my coworkers!). It'd be interesting to see what leftists see as divisions in their movement.

Same here. As a far-leftist (by American standards) I notice similar divisions between “progressive social leftists” (most lefties) and your “old guard socialists” (me and my fellow “reds”!) I talk economic perspectives with most, but I hold an animosity towards the overall trends of idpol and “u white male!1!1!!!” types of politics. The way I saw it, is that this “oppression” is demeaning and in the end, hinders the proletarian movement as a whole.

>"old guard socialist"
>"antifa is bad and violent"
i sense some inconsistency

[Syfenq]

The issue with the "poor people voting conservative is irrational and can only be based on hatred" line of thought is that it doesn't take into account the realities and cultural values on the ground, especially in rural areas. For (a relatively uncontested)example, in Appalachia, coal and logging have long been the major industries. These are disproportionately impacted by environmental regs, and therefore it is rational for poor Appalachians to vote for the party which is more opposed to environmental regulations as opposed to the party which is more in favor of government welfare- few people argue that a check from the government is a better deal than a steady job.
There's also the fact that most "working class" whites are not, technically, poor enough to qualify for government benefits. Taking home a bigger chunk of their paycheck helps them more than a more expansive medicaid because they don't get medicaid anyways- it's no coincidence that republican politicians usually don't rail against benefits like, say, tax refunds that their constituents tend to get.
Edit: There's also a "competition for wages" theory view about immigration- construction workers(generally conservative and lower income), for example, know that illegal immigration reduce wages in their industry.

Mhm, yep.

The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort—programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

[Chan Island]

Yes, because the conservative ideology is inherently irrational.

/thread

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, because the conservative ideology is inherently irrational.

/thread

Technically yes

[Libervalley]

As far as I see it it's regulations that are killing and killed our nation's economies, from first-hand experience

>Claims regulations are killing economy
>Doesn't list any of the regulations


If regulations were killing the economy you wouldn't have any problem actually listing the one's responsible. Also, fun fact, one of the main tenants of Tickle Down Economics is deregulation, and that system has not only survived but grown in the 21st century in direct decline of our social classes, so it's not hard to find what may be the cause of this socioeconomic problem. (Or maybe it is, IDK, I don't have trouble with it but it seems like others do. I mean, it's not like we have recorded history of the free market acting on its own and having everything go to shit-Oh wait...)

The United States has never had a free market, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. The proper term is "supply side economics" not "Trickle-Down" as detractors call it and mischaracterize it. The central philosophy is that giving property and business owners back their own money through tax reductions will allow people to invest in equipment, labor and resources to grow business and increase productivity. Also reducing regulations makes it easier for smaller entrepreneurs to start and be successful against larger businesses increasing competition. It worked when Coolidge did it in the 20's, with JFK, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (to an extent since the cuts weren't big) and Donald Trump and every time there is a general upswing in the economy.

There are tons of regulations that make the economy less efficient such as the government requirement to put ethanol in gasoline which is basically just a subsidy to corn farmers. Occupational licensing creates enormous berries to entry which makes entrepreneurship more difficult and reduces competition in the market. Over regulation from the EPA classifies private property which devalues the land and limits its use hurting land owners. Over regulation in the 70's absolutely destroyed the railroads.

When people already have money and influence it is easy for them to overcome regulation and other costs from the government. Smaller competitors can not overcome the increased costs of regulation which makes it difficult to get off the ground therefore widens the economic gap. When the economy stagnates is when income gap widen substantially because those with the resources are already flying and those that don't can't get off the ground. Stagnation happened for the passed 8 years of the Obama administration when government expenditures dramatically increased yet the economy had a very low average growth rate.